1.Defense Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

MS. KAWASS: So, Your Honor, at this time defense would like to renew all previous motions and objections, and make our first motion for judgment of acquittal as it relates to the charges against Ms. Magbanua.

I'll start first with the principal to first-degree murder. To sustain a conviction as a principal for a crime committed by another, the State must prove that the defendant intended that the crime be committed, and did some act or some word that would cause or assist the other person in actually committing the crime.

In this case, Judge, it's very clear, even through the State's lead detective, the only direct evidence in this case against Ms. Magbanua's involvement comes from the words of Luis Rivera. Everything else is circumstantial as it relates to Ms. Magbanua's involvement.

In this case, the only thing he was able to testify to as to Ms. Magbanua's involvement is that Garcia said that she is the mastermind behind also of this. There were no details as to who did the hiring, how the money was transferred. Rivera just said everything came through Garcia, and he was hired by Garcia, who was paid afterwards by Katie.

So in this case, Judge, we don't have any evidence that Ms. Magbanua intended that this crime be committed or did anything to assist. I'm going to point the Court to the case of williams v. State, which is a Florida First DCA case from 2021, 314 So. 3d 775. The State failed to produce -- and this is a murder-for-hire case, Judge. The State failed to produce evidence to make out a prima facie case that Ms. williams was a principal to murder.

In this case they found that only culpable conduct Ms. Williams, who was a defendant in the case, was that she helped to develop an alibi, she included considerations of ways to kill the victim in the case, and she was agreeing to encourage the person to go out so that he could end up being killed by who was her, I guess, lover at the time, who ended up being a witness that testified against her.

And the Court actually overturned her jury conviction for a principal for first-degree murder. That case actually delineates very well, you know, accessory after the fact, accessory before, and the principal case as it relates to first-degree murder. And I feel that that case is controlling here.

They had more evidence in that case, as it relates to principal for first-degree murder. So I would say that in this case we have even less, because the only evidence as it relates to what Ms. Magbanua allegedly did to assist in this came from the words of Luis Rivera, which all he was able to say was that she was the mastermind.

I'm also going to rely on Rocker v. State, 122 So. 3d 898, as the language in there as it relates to circumstantial evidence. TI won't go over all of that, Judge. I'm just going to rely on what circumstantial evidence can be to establish principal.

I'm going to now move on to Count 2, conspiracy to commit murder. A conspiracy exists where there is an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense. And an intention to commit the offense, which in this case is murder. we have zero evidence before this Court of an agreement between Ms. Magbanua and any member of the Adelson family.

In fact, the State's own witness, Ms. Adelson, said that her family had nothing to do with this. The Court is very well aware that the State can't rely on impeachment evidence to substantiate the charges -- the elements of the charges, because impeachment evidence isn't substantive evidence. So the Court has to look at all the evidence that was not impeachment.

All we have left here is Luis Rivera saying Garcia says she's the mastermind or the go-between. There's nothing in there that says who she conspired with, what the agreement was. He explicitly said he had no information as it relates to that because he doesn't know those people. And that all the information came to him from Garcia.

And in this case, in this courtroom, the only thing he was able to say as it relates to MS. Magbanua, anything occurring before the murder was, he told me that, you know, she's in the middle.

Count 3, solicitation to commit murder. The elements are that the State has to prove that the defendant commanded, hired, requested, and encouraged another person to commit a crime, and had the intent that the other person commit the crime.

MS. KAWASS: In this case I'm relying on the same argument, Judge. Because the only direct evidence comes from Luis Rivera's mouth. There's nothing else to substantiate who it was that solicited Sigfredo Garcia. He didn't explicitly say that Sigfredo told him that Katie was the one that came to him to get him to do the murder.

He just said Garcia showed up at his residence -- or, actually, he found out -- whichever one it is, that he found out on the way up on the first trip what it was. And then he then testifies that he hears Garcia talking on the phone and believes it to be Ms. Magbanua. But there is no direct evidence that Ms. Magbanua solicited either one of them to do this crime.

So, Your Honor, I know you've been paying close attention to all the evidence in this case, I'll rely on the Court's recollection of how the evidence presented itself. But that's our argument as it relates to the first JOA, that the State has failed to establish those elements as being a prima facie case of any of the three charges that I just went over.

MR. DECOSTE: Perfect. So, Your Honor, this may help out as well, too, for the timing. Unfortunately, this system has gone down. And we need the system, in some part, for each witness. The -- I apologize, I don't know his name -- the tech guy came and then he said he's calling facilities management.

There's no power going to it.

MR. DECOSTE: So 40 minutes. And then, obviously, cross-examination. we do have Trooper Downing, who is here. The FHP trooper. we haven't spoken to him yet. we're going to push him a little bit later in calling the witnesses and have a conversation with him.

Ryan Fitzpatrick, we flew him up. He's here. He's going to be a little bit longer. And Ms. Kawass can tell me how long she thinks that examination is going to be.

MR. DECOSTE: Correct. And that's the way that we used to do it before all this.

My hope is that we can get an idea of whether it's going to get fixed right now. I haven't gone -- because I just came in. I got my stuff set up. I haven't gone through it to figure out what I need it for and what I don't. I can look real quick and see.

MR. DECOSTE: Okay. So, Your Honor, to make clear on this, days ago I went over with Ms. Dugan and went through these items. There's nothing new in here. It's all from their discovery. We've reviewed it. I'm going to review it with them again so that there's no surprises, so that they can't claim that they haven't seen it.

This idea that we have not given them items -- first, it's incorrect because it's from their evidence. But, yes, as I'm questioning -- there's a difference in between exhibits and impeachment times when I'm questioning Agent Sanford and he says --

MR. DECOSTE: Correct. And Your Honor remembers her testimony. She said with respect to not being -- that Investigator Bennett in the phone call says, you are aware that I was going to be calling you, and Jessica Rodriguez says yes. So she's being impeached on that topic.

She said that --

MR. DECOSTE: Correct. So Sherri Bennett -- Investigator Bennett in the phone call says, Ms. Rodriguez, you were aware I was going to be calling you? To which Ms. Rodriguez says yes. In her testimony she said that she was not aware that -- that she was not aware that the phone call was coming in.

She also testified that this alleged money drop happened in July of 2014, yet in the phone call she says August, September. She says that Katherine handed the bag, but in the phone call said, he had the bag, in reference to Garcia.

She said that she pressed Katie to find out what was in the bag and that Katie didn't know what was in the bag. She then stated that it was Garcia that called Rivera, not Katherine Magbanua.

And, most importantly, Your Honor, she is very clear in saying that -- and, again, we believe that these are all allegations, so they're not entered for the truth of matter asserted. But we're still only using it for impeachment. She says Sigfredo Garcia and Katherine Magbanua left before Luis Rivera got there, which is a complete contradiction to what she said on the stand the other day.

That's all we're playing. It's about a five-minute portion. There's other stuff --